Tuesday, September 24, 2013

ABOUT ACCELERATED READING PROGRAM

Opinions and Research Regarding the Accelerated Reading Program follows.  

Conclusion from a synthesis of studies about Accelerated Reader by Stephen Krashen.  

The results presented here strongly suggest that of the four aspects of AR, access to books, time devoted to reading, tests, and rewards, only the first two are supported by research. There is considerable evidence that providing access to books results in more reading and better reading and considerable evidence that providing time to read results in better reading. There is suggestive evidence that incentives do not promote additional reading in the long term. The AR research literature does nothing to change these conclusions.

A hypothetical example may help us understand whether AR should be used or not. Drug A and Drug B are both designed to cure a specific disease. A is known to be effective with highly beneficial long-term effects. There is little evidence for or  against B, but suggestive evidence that it may be harmful in the long run. A drug company produces AB, more expensive than A alone, and justifies it by providing studies showing that AB tends to be effective. A scientist reviewing the research shows that no study has compared AB to A alone. Clearly such studies are called for before the medical establishment endorses or even approves AB. A is providing access and time to read. B is tests and rewards. Accelerated Reader is AB.

Obviously our first priority should be to make sure that high-interest reading
material is easily available to students, and that students have time to read and a place to read. Ironically we have not even done this for many students. Instead, we rush off to purchase a more expensive, complex package that may have long term harmful effects. 

From The (Lack of ) Experimental Evidence Supporting the Use of Accelerated Reader
By Stephen Krashen
Journal of Children's Literature (2003) vol .29 (2): 9, pp. 16-30.

American Association of School Librarian’s  excerpt from their position statement regarding Accelerated Reader program
AR provides teachers with a more up-to-date record keeping system: a way to use technology tools to assess students’ reading levels, keep track of student progress, and determine whether or not the student has read the AR books” (Institute for Academic Excellence 1999). Although AR operates under the belief that “practice makes perfect” (School Renaissance Institute 1999, 7) AR does not enable students to: 
  • analyze complex and conflicting presentations of information
  • appreciate the variety of perspectives offered by individual viewpoints, scholarly disciplines, and cultural understandings
  • use information competently in critical thinking, decision making, and problem solving
  • produce new information and create products and presentations that communicate ideas efficiently and effectively
  • act responsibly in regard to information, particularly with respect to the difficult issues of intellectual freedom, equitable access to information, intellectual property rights (ALA 1998)

Jim Trelease Author and Nationally Recognized Expert on Reading Aloud to Children Writes About Accelerated Reading Program

Before committing precious dollars to such a program, a district should decide its purpose: Is the program there to motivate children to read more or to create another grading platform?
Susan Straight is no lightweight critic. With six novels to her credit (including a finalist for the National Book Award), along with an Edgar Award (given to mystery writers) and inclusion in the 2003 Best American Short Stories, this literature professor and mother of three carries some ballast in her literary criticism. In 2009 she took on Accelerated Reader.
Her argument was not with its good intentions but with how it is implemented and its point system (which often comes down to “thicker is better”). She wrote:
Librarians and teachers report that students will almost always refuse to read a book not on the Accelerated Reader list, because they won’t receive points. They base their reading choices not on something they think looks interesting, but by how many points they will get. The passion and serendipity of choosing a book at the library based on the subject or the cover or the first page is nearly gone, as well as the excitement of reading a book simply for pleasure.
This is not all the fault of Renaissance Learning [AR], which I believe is trying to help schools encourage students to read. Defenders of the program say the problem isn’t with Accelerated Reader itself, but with how it is often implemented, with the emphasis on point-gathering above all else. But when I looked at Renaissance Learning’s Web site again this summer, I noticed the tag line under the company name: “Advanced Technology for Data-Driven Schools.”
That constant drive for data is all too typical in the age of No Child Left Behind helping to replace a freely discovered love of language and story with a more rigid way of reading,

For entire article see

No comments:

Post a Comment